The battle over The Pirate Bay has raged on ever since 2006 and led to convictions in both the district court and court of appeal. The case is principally interesting in many ways, yet the Supreme Court today decided not to try the Pirate Bay case.

- The Pirate Bay case is principally important and it's unfortunate that the Supreme Court chooses not to take up the case, says The Pirate Party's party leader Anna Troberg. The handling [of the case] has, already from the strike in May 2006, been insufficient, and it had been desireable that the Supreme Court would've approached the case.

The Pirate Bay case has, ever since the 31st of May, when fifty or so police officers stormed the web hotel PRQ and confiscated all servers - not just Pirate Bay's - been surrounded by questions. Prosecutors and courts have displayed an insufficient technical competence. One of the police's investigators wage negotiated with Warner - one of the parties in the case - in the middle of the ongoing investigation - and then got a position with Warner, right after the completion of the investigation. Cultural minister Lena Adelsohn-Liljeroth chose to support the first conviction, despite that the conviction had been appealed and the legal process therefore had not ended.

- There are many questions that need to be straightened out, both in and around this case, says Troberg. Due to the Supreme Court's decision, we will be sitting with many loose ends that will complicate in future cases of a similar sort. The intellectual property industry is mobilizing, and as of this decision, they will intensify their hunt for owners of torrent sites and individual file sharers.

Later today comes the verdict from Nacka district court against a man [who] has file shared sixty movies via, among others, The Pirate Bay. During that trial, it was clear that the prosecutor, despite him having the police's expert beside him, hadn't insight in how the ADSL technique works.

In three weeks, a trial also begins against the man who ran the torrent site Studentbay. Today's answer from the Supreme Court will affect this trial in every sense of the way.

Where are the court cases against Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook and similar companies with all too comparable, just as lawful/"unlawful" services, I wonder? Clearly, who you are matters a great deal. Having a famous company over something like The Pirate Bay, or even MegaUpload, obviously matters a great deal, even in Sweden. Is this acceptable, or should these unjust people be held accountable for their wrongful actions?

Lawyer Per E. Samuelsson, representative for one of the accused, explains that his client wants to proceed to the European Court of Justice, and that it is very likely that this will be done. He notes his disappointment with the Supreme Court's lack of interest in such a well-known case, but isn't surprised, pointing out how Swedish jurists tend to want to forget about things, when a heated situation develops.

I ask: Should they be allowed to forget? Furthermore: Will the European Court of Justice stand up to its name, and not just be a puppet court, like that of Sweden?